Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2010 20:15:44 GMT
I've read that the reason the old Japanese swords were made by folding 15 times or so, is that the basic iron ore they started with was of inferior quality, and the repeated heating, folding, and pounding served to get rid of most of the impurities. With that being said, what modern steel is comparable to a 400 year old blade?
|
|
SlayerofDarkness
Member
Review Points: 65
"Always give everyone the benefit of the doubt."
Posts: 3,067
|
Post by SlayerofDarkness on Jan 13, 2010 20:27:15 GMT
Oh dear. Here we go again! That being said, there are more opinions about this topic than members on this forum. Tamahagane, or traditional Japanese steel, is made in a very complicated manner, and from what I, personally, have read, it seems that Tamahagane's only advantages are beauty and tradition. Modern steels are every bit as good, if not superior, IMO; however, I'm not a metalurgist, or a smith, and I fully recognize that my opinion is just that -on opinion-, and may very well be wrong in either direction... So, I highly doubt that anyone will come to a conclusion as to which is better; heck, we couldn't do it the last 3 times this came up! HTH, Slayer
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2010 20:41:38 GMT
Not really asking which is better, just what steel available today would have been similar to the steels of yesteryear. The steel in today's firearms are superior to 19th C. firearms. If a good monosteel had been available to the Japanese smiths, it would have saved a lot of work. I agree, the folded blades do have artistic merit to them.
|
|
|
Post by Tom K. (ianflaer) on Jan 13, 2010 20:43:41 GMT
well metalurgically speaking pretty much any of our modern steels are better than tamahagane. in fact shortly after Japan had been opened to the west Japanese smiths sought out western steel and paid premium for it because it was so much better than what they had.
now I would like to point out that the OP is not asking what is BETTER but rather which of our modern steels acts the most like tamahagane. in which I would say probably none. BUT. I have heard that 1070 tends to have about the same amount of carbon meaning it can become about as hard. the swiss powder steels require some sort of folding work and tend to produce patterns of grain in the steel that can be similar to tamahagane (but powder steel is expensive)
in the end nothing you get today (at least in our price range) will compare to that 400 year old sword simply because of quality of the craftsman and the methods used. production swords just will not mimick a hand made work by a master smith.
my advice would be to get a sword made by the best smith/production company you can afford because while the steel will certainly be better the design of the sword and the sword as a whole just wil not be as good as a master smith's work from history.
in the end you can get some very good swords in our price range. tell us what you like/ are interested in and we can help you find what will work for you.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Davis on Jan 13, 2010 20:48:45 GMT
it's like this: 400 years ago you had people that were very good at steel refinement and then again, you had people that sucked at it. This is true without regard to where you are looking: China, Germany, Japan, India, Britain, Africa - same story everywhere.
These days, steel refinement is pretty uniform, standard, and done in mass quantities by computers.
Once steel is refined (by whatever means) into a good usable product it is essentially the same as any other steel with the same characteristics.
So, a high-quality refined piece of steel from 400 years ago is just as good as a piece you pick up from Crucible, Admiral or any other steel mill.
A crappy piece of steel from 400 years ago is no worse (or better) than a crappy piece of steel made this morning.
There is nothing special or magical about antique steel OR modern steel; steel is steel.
As Slayer said, just my opinion. I AM a metallurgist and a smith, but still - my opinion.
Edit: to further answer the original question: the typical carbon content of an old blade is hard to describe, as most were made in multiple parts from different grades of steel to begin with. If you are looking for a generally comparable monosteel then believe it or not you are looking at 1065 (which is why I use it a lot) and in my experience 1065 responds best to full on traditional methods. If you are using the adaptive methods used by most western smiths then your best bet is 1070 or 1084; if trying for more extreme traditional methods then 1045 or 1050 is your best bet.
In the end it comes down to the skill of the smith and the methods he uses more than the steel he chooses to work with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2010 21:06:40 GMT
You know, this kinda reminds me of a poll at MyArmoury, where the question was whether or not you would buy a sword made from authentic bloomery iron if it could be made for the same price as one made by modern steel.
Anyway, my impression -and please correct me if I'm wrong- is that Japanese iron was inferior to European iron of the same period, but that the same wasn't necessarily true for the quality of swords due to all the work the Japanese put into making them.
I've been told that while in the West a swordsman could settle for a mediocre budget weapon, in Japan even poor quality swords were rather expensive.
|
|
Brett Whinnen
Member
I know enough to know I still know nothing
Posts: 208
|
Post by Brett Whinnen on Jan 13, 2010 22:00:18 GMT
I may be wrong here guys, but I think he is looking at it from the other angle. He is not saying that tamahagane has magical properties, he is asking what modern steel would be the equivalent of the tamahagane that would have been taken from the resultant kera from the tatara. My understanding is that the tanahagane was anywhere from 0.9% to 1.5% carbon. There are various steels and irons (as well as other crap) in the kera and it was up to the smelter and smiths to determine what was best for each part of the blade.
As to a modern equiv of tamahagane, no idea, generally modern smelting techniques result in a more uniform and exact mix with little to no impurities. It has been mentioned that also the older way of smelting through the tatara gave more oxygen rich steels, meaning that there were more oxidized impurities mixed in the steel (well not that they were metal obviously), it is these that needed to be hammered out in the forge welding / folding process. Also these impurities are not seen in modern day smelted steel, so would the old forging methods be relevant with modern day steels? Would they even give the same hada? Or something more distinctly, well, modern?
So just remember tamahagane is the name given to a specific steel from the smelting process, there are many other grades of steel that would have come from the same kera (resultant mass from the smelting process in the tatara), each of which have their own name and properties as well as uses...
Brett
|
|
|
Post by Dan Davis on Jan 13, 2010 22:09:37 GMT
Anders,
Close but not quite on the mark. Japanese iron ORE was far inferior to what was generally available to the European market, making the amount of effort needed to produce a bloom far greater.
But, once the bloom was done it was essentially the same as any European bloom.
Not all of Europe had high-grade ore available all the time, either. Refining bog iron in northern England and Scotland was a long, drawn out ordeal too.
While it was true that Japanese swords were more expensive than their European counterparts, in the context of either economy they were more or less equal. During the Feudal warring periods Japanese smiths turned out hundreds of thousands of "bundle swords" which were given to rank and file bushi just as in Europe. During peace time in Japan no one would consider making these weapons as they were "low status" and no one would use one if it were to be made.
By contrast, European smiths never stopped producing middle and lower quality weapons because Europe is HUGE compared to Japan; by and large someone was always fighting a war somewhere in Europe and therefore equipping rank and file soldiers. The fact that mid-grade and low grade weapons were commonplace throughout Europe at all times allowed a swordsman to use that class of weapon without stigma. This lasted all the way up until swords went out of vogue entirely as a military weapon. Can you imagine showing up at court in Victorian England wearing a cheap P.O.S.?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Davis on Jan 13, 2010 22:16:23 GMT
Brett, Old-style charcoal blooms using the European methods give essentially the same result as you get with a tatara; the only real difference between the old European and old Japanese methods is that the Japanese would complete the smelting and cementation processes in one step, where in Europe it was typically done in two steps and often hundreds or thousands of miles separated the two processes.
Neither of these methods is anything like the bessemer converter process used today.
|
|
Brett Whinnen
Member
I know enough to know I still know nothing
Posts: 208
|
Post by Brett Whinnen on Jan 13, 2010 22:35:25 GMT
Brett, Old-style charcoal blooms using the European methods give essentially the same result as you get with a tatara; the only real difference between the old European and old Japanese methods is that the Japanese would complete the smelting and cementation processes in one step, where in Europe it was typically done in two steps and often hundreds or thousands of miles separated the two processes. Neither of these methods is anything like the bessemer converter process used today. I'll have to have a look at how it was done in Europe, never looked into that side of things, but as my 'passion' (or should that be addiction) is moving into European blades it makes sense to see how they were made and how the ore was smelted in the first place. Thanks for some extra commentary Dan, you've given me another research project Brett
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2010 22:37:00 GMT
Anders, Close but not quite on the mark. Japanese iron ORE was far inferior to what was generally available to the European market, making the amount of effort needed to produce a bloom far greater. But, once the bloom was done it was essentially the same as any European bloom. Not all of Europe had high-grade ore available all the time, either. Refining bog iron in northern England and Scotland was a long, drawn out ordeal too. While it was true that Japanese swords were more expensive than their European counterparts, in the context of either economy they were more or less equal. During the Feudal warring periods Japanese smiths turned out hundreds of thousands of "bundle swords" which were given to rank and file bushi just as in Europe. During peace time in Japan no one would consider making these weapons as they were "low status" and no one would use one if it were to be made. By contrast, European smiths never stopped producing middle and lower quality weapons because Europe is HUGE compared to Japan; by and large someone was always fighting a war somewhere in Europe and therefore equipping rank and file soldiers. The fact that mid-grade and low grade weapons were commonplace throughout Europe at all times allowed a swordsman to use that class of weapon without stigma. This lasted all the way up until swords went out of vogue entirely as a military weapon. Can you imagine showing up at court in Victorian England wearing a cheap P.O.S.? Well, I did ask to be corrected. Now I know! (And knowing is half the battle.)
|
|
|
Post by sparky on Jan 14, 2010 0:08:02 GMT
Thanks Dan, you are a fountain of information and it is appreciated! I don't suppose I can become a metallurgist and a smith just by reading post on a message board huh? Yeah, I didn't think so. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Dan Davis on Jan 14, 2010 0:37:30 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2010 1:03:51 GMT
On that note, there is a local smithy here that specializes in architectural blacksmithing, so would taking the class help or hinder a person when it comes to making blades?
|
|
|
Post by Dan Davis on Jan 14, 2010 2:54:13 GMT
A general blacksmith is a GREAT place to start. Bladesmithing is a specialized form of blacksmithing, so you need the basics of blacksmithing in order to be an effective bladesmith. ERGO, start with a blacksmith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2010 3:57:26 GMT
Liam, it would jump you ahead years if you got some basic blacksmithing courses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2010 14:33:58 GMT
Yes, that was the intent of my question--what modern day steel would be similar to what the smiths were working with in the 16th or 17th C. With the edge being very hard, was that as hard as a file? Just trying to learn the attributes of the Japanese blade.
|
|
|
Post by Matt993f.o.d on Jan 14, 2010 17:08:20 GMT
Liam, you may well find you really enjoy blacksmithing, and choose to do that as well as make blades. That is what I did!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2010 17:45:04 GMT
Yeah, It's just the class at Kaviar Forge costs $400 I don't have at the moment, and I'm wondering how much it would affect the bad shoulder. I may take the class yet but it depends on getting some other things in life settled. But it does seem like it would be fun, even if I am a bit old compared to most of the other students.
|
|
|
Post by Dan Davis on Jan 14, 2010 18:22:48 GMT
so get in touch with these guys: ky.abana-chapter.com/ ; membership is $15.00 a year You have Larry Zoeller in your back yard: www.zoellerforge.com/ ; give him a jingle $400 bucks for a five-week course is NOT a bad price though. About the bad shoulder: The VA removed both of my collarbones a few years back and hammering does not bother me. Hammering (with good technique) should not bother you either.
|
|